CO2

@ambrooks OK dude, a couple of volcanos in four days dwarf the entirety of all human efforts to reduce CO2.

Not to mention that China creates two new coal-fired power plants every week. But you go ahead and throw tomato soup at a Van Gogh painting and you go save the planet, Spanky.

@ambrooks No, volcanoes emit about 200 Million Tons of CO2 per year and this is mostly used by plants, or absorbed inside the Oceans. Humans are emitting Over 30.000 Million Tons of CO2 per year.

Volcanoes, 200 million: www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/
Human Emissions: ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

And basically the entire emissions are based on Fossil Fuels, Coal, like you said, Oil and Gas...

No, I'll never ruin a Van Gogh painting, and who does that should be arrested for years.

@weplaychess90 Dude you have zero evidence that human emissions of CO2 affect global temperatures in any significant way. And scientific American is no longer a serious source. They print clown articles saying that math is racist.

zhttp://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/Nir_Shaviv_Chapter_Die_Kalte_Sonne.pdf

Professor Shaviv explains everything in this paper, why the IPCC is wrong in their claims that human-produced CO2 is causing a problem.

@ambrooks said in #34:
> Shaviv

The guy who said this?

>I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue.

And concluded with this

>I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go.

Why would any rational person oppose solar, wind and nuclear? I am in favor of these sources being used in the free market - but NOT in favor of the government subsidizing these inefficient energy sources ( wind and solar - nuclear is totally efficient ).

If you are a good engineer and can make them more efficient without picking my pocket to do so - I applaud you. Let the free market decide. Socialism sucks !

@ambrooks said in #36:
> government subsidizing

Like this?

www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion

energytalkingpoints.com/subsidies/

Q: Don't fossil fuels get more subsidies than solar and wind?
A: Not only do solar and wind get dozens of times more subsidies than fossil fuels, they get many other unfair advantages--such as no price penalty for unreliability--without which they would barely be used at all.

The proper way to measure energy subsidies is: How much taxpayer money does the government pay per unit of energy? Every per-unit analysis using data from the US Energy Information Administration is clear: solar and wind get dozens of times more subsidies than fossil fuels.1

“Despite renewable energy receiving almost half the federal subsidies, EIA reported that fossil energy in the form of coal, oil, natural gas and natural gas plant liquids made up 78.1 percent of primary energy production in FY 2016.
...
In FY 2016, certain tax provisions related to oil and natural gas yielded positive revenue flow for the government, resulting in a negative net subsidy of $773 million for oil and natural gas, based on estimates from the U.S. Department of Treasury.”
Institute for Energy Research - EIA Report: Renewable Energy Still Dominates Energy Subsidies
Terry Dinan - U.S. House of Representatives testimony, 2017 (p. 4)

Ok, you're not against it then. Lmao.

@ambrooks

Of course, in any democracy, where the people rule and have power, they all want to earn more and control the economy, making their own businesses, rather than letting someone control them, or being a slave of a multinational company that monopolizes everything. They want the economy to be free and they want control of the resources.



Here you have a link, comparing the temperature measures from 3 different institutions: NOAA, NASA and Met (UK). The temperature measures match with each other, with little variations. Are they all lying or combining with one another?

You can see an increase of almost 1 degree, from 1970 to 2020, this is the evidence. In the same time that CO2 emissions have grown, the temperatures have grown aswell.